)But please, don't say defending is easy, a 1on1 is easy, but ever other situation possible besides that is either very hard, or it's a team's responsibility.
No use discussing over this
Deathball Defense
Moderators: Jay2k1, DavidM, The_One
Rino wrote: Original posted by [1234Jr]
Well the only one who supassed his idiocracy it's you, gg reading only the first line of a meesage....
Last off topic post, but you didnt read mine then, gg
and all it is is [/ quote].
Anyway, if an attacker gets by a defender and shoots it should be reset because his team wasnt there on the counter attack or close enough to be of use?
-
Fallen_Bullet
- Posts: 82
- Joined: 26-11-2003 02:27
-
Fallen_Bullet
- Posts: 82
- Joined: 26-11-2003 02:27
People like messy jump to conclusions about everything. Look at each post and how it differs from my original one. It became, "Foo is right, everyone else are idots". Read my post again, and again, then come and justify what I mean. How disgusted I am with the replies given the subject. The replies is somewhat clear, however the words are vulgar.
If you don't like me posting in reply towards you, stay home with your own opinion -.-
If you don't like me posting in reply towards you, stay home with your own opinion -.-
95% of these replies are black and white, includng Fooman's. (in regards to the original post).
Phrase it this way and then re-write your opinon:
"In deathball, one on one, defender vs. attacker, the attacker needs a way to bypass the defender without skill or luck, how could you go about do this?"
Don't say "thats what the defenders for" because thats not the question and is completely irrelivant, answer the question with your own opinion, or give a better reason than "thats the defenders role" (which seems to be the overwhelming opinion) and try to explain why the attackers role is not to score by this same argument.
------------------
For my opinion, I would say a skill would need to be added or modified that lets the attacker use the charge on his gun to boost the defender away but with a limitation.
For example, shooting the ball than left clicking would release a blast from the attackers gun that would propell the attacker, and anyone within his volley range backwards an equal distance relative to how long he had charged his gun (using a conventional shot i would assume) before releasing the charge.
This would allow seperation between an attacker and a defender but nether would "accomplish" anything. The attacker would gain no offensive advantages, and if the defender is in the proper placement (between the net and the attacker) would put them at no greater of an advantage, nor a disadvantage.
Phrase it this way and then re-write your opinon:
"In deathball, one on one, defender vs. attacker, the attacker needs a way to bypass the defender without skill or luck, how could you go about do this?"
Don't say "thats what the defenders for" because thats not the question and is completely irrelivant, answer the question with your own opinion, or give a better reason than "thats the defenders role" (which seems to be the overwhelming opinion) and try to explain why the attackers role is not to score by this same argument.
------------------
For my opinion, I would say a skill would need to be added or modified that lets the attacker use the charge on his gun to boost the defender away but with a limitation.
For example, shooting the ball than left clicking would release a blast from the attackers gun that would propell the attacker, and anyone within his volley range backwards an equal distance relative to how long he had charged his gun (using a conventional shot i would assume) before releasing the charge.
This would allow seperation between an attacker and a defender but nether would "accomplish" anything. The attacker would gain no offensive advantages, and if the defender is in the proper placement (between the net and the attacker) would put them at no greater of an advantage, nor a disadvantage.
-
theberkin8or
- Senior Member
- Posts: 794
- Joined: 09-03-2003 20:41
interesting idea (though I don't think it would work) personaly I think that a good O should be able to get by a good D something like 10% of the time (especially if the O is more skilled than the D), currently I am not sure that is the case. The reason I say this is becuase it would mean most of the time the O would be wasting a chance but at the same time it means he can/ is forced to make a decision to risk losing the ball or to try and develop the play a little more.
Making it a sure 99% of the time type of thing takes the choice out of that decision of course you are always going to pass and probably volley (becuase it does not require a decision and will not be viewed as a wasted chance).
I really think TV could expand the options and thus the fun in db if they gave the ball carrier some way to 'juke' the D. One that took a lot a skill and pratice and was still a risk but one that had a chance of success. Maybe even a small brust of speed (limited to one direction) which simply made the O as fast as the D for about 3 steps (like what your sprint idea should have been).
but I am dreaming of course becuase opening up the game has not been a priority for a long time.
Making it a sure 99% of the time type of thing takes the choice out of that decision of course you are always going to pass and probably volley (becuase it does not require a decision and will not be viewed as a wasted chance).
I really think TV could expand the options and thus the fun in db if they gave the ball carrier some way to 'juke' the D. One that took a lot a skill and pratice and was still a risk but one that had a chance of success. Maybe even a small brust of speed (limited to one direction) which simply made the O as fast as the D for about 3 steps (like what your sprint idea should have been).
but I am dreaming of course becuase opening up the game has not been a priority for a long time.
Am I the only one who thinks it's better to have an attacker wait for someone to come in so they can pass? 
It's a teamgame.
You guys are saying it like there's absolutely no chance against a defender.
You can trick them, yes yes you can
but why?
It's a teamgame..pass, make sure your team won't leave one man alone against a defender and a keeper, boost people in..easy.
I see no reason for an attacker to try beating a defender and a keeper in a 5on5 =/
It's a teamgame.
You guys are saying it like there's absolutely no chance against a defender.
You can trick them, yes yes you can
but why?It's a teamgame..pass, make sure your team won't leave one man alone against a defender and a keeper, boost people in..easy.
I see no reason for an attacker to try beating a defender and a keeper in a 5on5 =/
CripTonic wrote: If it's a team game, why doesn't the defender need a team to defend?
Eeck, are you that stupid? o_O
As a defender, being left alone by your team is the worst thing that can happen to you -.-
The only situation you can do anything against really in that case is 1on1.
In 1on2 you have a chance, but you shouldn't, unless attackers do something stupid, you're lucky (and they're unlucky), or your team pressures them in a way so that they do something stupid
am I that stupid?
Prove your case. I defend in public games constantly and get the "defenders award" even when i play offense because I play smart when I play defensivly.
I can stop 3v1's 30-40% of the time, because i look for possibilities opposed to waiting for them to come to me. If 3 players are running down fiel all on the same side, your job is done for you. If 2 are on a side and the ball is on the other you can usually eliminate 2 passes and force the carrier to shoot (which may be a good thing depending on the angle of attack). Stop making excuses for why you suck at defense and learn to play it properly adn the game becomes so much easier.
I havn't been playing the game very long but for some reason I always seem to have more ball touches and interceptions than 90% of the people that I play with and thats not because i'm "that stupid" apparently.
Regardless of your character bashing, you still havn't proven anything. you're saying 1v1 a striker/attacker/forward should require a team member with them, while int he same situation, a defender doesnt to gain an advantage. Congratulations, you win the "Didn't think through my arguement" award. Like I said, you're raising a double standard.
With 2 defenders and 2 attackers, who has the advantage? defenders. 3v3? defenders. When you have to outnumber an opponent to beat them successfully something is wrong. This holds true in any game.
Prove your case. I defend in public games constantly and get the "defenders award" even when i play offense because I play smart when I play defensivly.
I can stop 3v1's 30-40% of the time, because i look for possibilities opposed to waiting for them to come to me. If 3 players are running down fiel all on the same side, your job is done for you. If 2 are on a side and the ball is on the other you can usually eliminate 2 passes and force the carrier to shoot (which may be a good thing depending on the angle of attack). Stop making excuses for why you suck at defense and learn to play it properly adn the game becomes so much easier.
I havn't been playing the game very long but for some reason I always seem to have more ball touches and interceptions than 90% of the people that I play with and thats not because i'm "that stupid" apparently.
Regardless of your character bashing, you still havn't proven anything. you're saying 1v1 a striker/attacker/forward should require a team member with them, while int he same situation, a defender doesnt to gain an advantage. Congratulations, you win the "Didn't think through my arguement" award. Like I said, you're raising a double standard.
With 2 defenders and 2 attackers, who has the advantage? defenders. 3v3? defenders. When you have to outnumber an opponent to beat them successfully something is wrong. This holds true in any game.